let me put your attention to this story speaking to n.b.c. news afghanistan president hamid karzai said that the u.s. is in part to blame for afghanistan's instability check it out. it's. for a number of years ago a growing perception the kind of stuff. that. it's a significant part of it you could just of in afghanistan it's caused by the we. do know that states and some of its allies. promoted to. get started by spreading corruption in afghanistan by. employing private security firms who became involved or all and. so having private mercenaries running around under the cloak of impunity has people in afghanistan pissed off can't say i'm not shocked that that that's not all because when the reporter probed even further cars i had this to say

a. very strong perception that the some of the skills to use the term stimulus wow president karzai himself is saying that afghans believe their insecurity is intentionally brought on by nato and the u.s. and you know what makes sense especially when i think of incidents such as the marines were found you're needed on the corpses of taliban fighters or the soldier who went off on a murderous killing spree one night seventeen innocent civilians or even just the presence of the american military in a country that does not want to be occupied a country where ninety percent polled doesn't even know what nine eleven is and americans wonder why this country hasn't won the hearts and minds of afghans but you know if karzai is right then all of this begs a very important question why would the u.s. intentionally be creating insecurity and instability in afghanistan unless the war is meant to be sustained not one so lets go break the set.

up. for ever seen anything like that. while guys it's friday and i'm sure a lot of you are excited for the weekend but for one man and his fiance. today is a somber day john cabrera a resident of long beach california is awaiting a verdict in court right now for a felony charge of failing to comply with an executive officer when he shut the door of his house on a cop last year if convicted faces five years in prison now if you think that sentence sounds unfair for someone simply exercising their rights then it might anger you to know the actual story of what went down that night on may fourteenth two thousand and eleven cabrera heard a loud knock on his door and opened it to a cop pointing a gun to his face without any reason or warning immediately closed the door on the

police officer and told his fiance to get dressed they could go and talk to the police but they never got a chance to do that because what followed was a hail of gunfire from at least six police officers in their apartment building and danger in the lives of those living inside and in the surrounding units of the complex at least thirty eight bullet holes were found in the walls of the building and compare him self was shot in the arm and torso and over a year later he still hasn't regained feeling in the arm that sustained the bullet wound now the cops involved in the shooting have admitted that john poses no threat that they were just responding to a noise complaint that they thought there was a victim of domestic abuse in the house but does any of that violent this kind of extreme response and police violence clearly not it's also worth noting that the same year this incident occurred the long beach police had the highest number of police shootings in the country per capita mostly involving minorities so to talk more about this case and the erosion of our civil liberties in the face of an ever

expanding police and surveillance state marc harrold a former police officer author political analyst and author journalist sorry thank you for coming on to me on appreciate it of course used to be a cop you just kind of heard us break down this case knowing both side of the story you're also an attorney what do you think. the a say and the man accused here did wrong if i don't you know it's not clear we don't hear a lot of conflicting stories with this point what we have is a trial most times what they're going to say is look we can't talk about this there's a trial going on but there seems to be a real hasn't see for real information to come out of the situation whether he did something wrong well the bottom line is when the police officer came up to the house if he had a warrant if there was an exit in z. inside the fact that the police officer stayed outside the house in other words you open the door may or may not have been a reason to have a weapon out but let's say you do have the weapon out when the occupant inside if you really have a right to enter that house if you have probable cause you may be able to follow them inside you may have a warrant there may be an existence of an emergency which allows you to follow them inside the fact that you point a gun at somebody and not follow that individual in makes me tells me that the cops

knew they really did have a lawful right to enter the residence and their special fourth member protections to the residence above everything but bodily integrity of the body cavity search maybe come in your house is a big deal for police officers in this case i'm not exactly sure what they did they said they obstructed justice but it's not going to obstruct justice you have to obstruct the lawful performance of police duties it's not clear what those lawful duties were it's not sure what he obstructed so hopefully gets justice in the trial to get justice for the cops to a trial should be about the truth coming out from both sides well yeah and fortunately the jury pool that was interviewed i think there is someone is that witness the whole thing go down and they said that all the jury basically said you know if a cop has reason to use this sort of violence then then we agree with kind of that cops would defer. to the cops you know side here i mean really when you're looking at these trials here it almost seems like a kangaroo court where where you have the jury pool the judge all kind of giving the cops this advantage i do think think think given some advantage and a lot of this has to do with people trust the police and in most cases i'm a former police officer in several different jurisdictions and i can tell you most

police are good people trying to do a great job it's a very tough job but i think the fact that sometimes the people do juries do give deference to cops they do think that they do the right thing i think in some cases that really the alarms go off when they can tell when something's wrong they want to trust cops but sometimes they can tell when they shouldn't and i think a lot of times juries get it right with these things well that's that's. good to know and you know just just to let our audience know i don't think a lot of people realize that what you said before you don't need to open your door you don't need to let police come inside your house unless they do have probable cause i mean it seems like that's kind of lost these days with you know people don't really understand the fourth amendment and what it means well absolutely i mean your house your house is actually listed in the text of the fourth amendment it's very important protection of the home police not only need probable cause to come in your home they need it most almost every case a warrant unless they're think session the fourth member like an emergency somebody inside is screaming help please don't have to go get a warrant you do not have to answer the door for police now if they have a warrant and you don't answer the door they're going to kick in so you may want to answer the door if they have a lawful reason to enter they have a judicially approved warrant the judge signed off on there probably because

they're coming in so a lot of people want to answer the door but as far as the fact you have to answer the door for the police you do not at all and unfortunately this case you know a shooting at a shooting up the entire apartment complex more than thirty at times really really intense you know this this case speaks volumes to law enforcement where police are overstepping their bounds of course a lot of cops are doing it for the right reasons unfortunately and if someone there was filming the incident i can't help but think you know none of this would even be an issue and what's really brings me to these eavesdropping laws that we're seeing on the books now in a couple states and a lot of laws is in the works that are preventing people from filming the police i do think that it's a civic duty for people to be able to film the establishment i don't know that it's a civic duty i don't know that in fact you have to go out do it if you don't want to but i think that having a civic duty something people here is there i definitely think a possibility absolutely a civil right it's a civil right it's very interesting to me because i'm interested in the intersection of the fourth amendment first amendment has a lot of ramifications almost every court that's looked at this and some federal

does appellate court high court right below the supreme court have found that you can film the cops as long as you don't interfere now there's no question that if and police officers actually arresting someone you've got the camera right there and you're affecting what the cops do and that's not because you're filming it's because you're interfering you're impeding you're obstructing but as far as whether you're going to be able to film the cops in public the answer that's going to be yes and i can. any court coming down the fact that you can't film public officers being paid by public funds in public doing their doing right and unfortunately so many videos have come out that certainly have shown the truth in a lot of situations i want to broaden this conversation to the surveillance state and general i just got a chance to talk to president jimmy carter about kind of the egregious expansion of the surveillance and since he left office i want to play that really quickly. violated a longstanding policy in our coach preserving the prophecy of american citizens we now have passed laws that permit eavesdropping on private telephone calls and private communications in the past when i was present we passed

a law that that could not be done in a single case unless you got a judge to decide in advance that this was a national security question which is very rare now is done all over america. what where what happened since he left office it just seems that business is completely rampant now it is rampant mandarin is one of the main reasons why technology's advanced for the basic point you have to in the past for a fourth amendment violation for the search area seizure the police officers the government had to intrude on something you had a protected interest in something private your house your car something where they actually either crossed a physical boundary or you had an expectation of privacy what's being happening now is basically replicating police being able to follow you around and they've always been able to do that police can follow you around and watch you but nobody had the resources to do it before the technology we're going to have to do is we're going have to get past the idea in criminal procedure constitutional law fourth amendment that we need protection against unreasonable search and seizure and we're going to have to add the word surveillance to the fourth amendment or amend the constitution

what we need now is a real conceptual framework not just piecemeal laws that we have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures and surveillance in this country we're going to have to take this step this is jimmy carter talking about this maybe president obama when he steps down will be the same as the white ally eisenhower talking about the military industrial complex i'm talking about we're in a real switch of time here and people almost expect to be watched and again if they come to the point where they don't expect not to be watched the law will protect you because a lot of it's based on your expectation of privacy and how sad is that that now we just expect it we expect that we're just surveilled everywhere we go i mean i feel like the result of the expectation of privacy should be with the technology you know the evolution of technology but i'm sure you've heard of this giant data center and utah not only is that data mining all private communications but it's it's that if you become a person of interest in the future they can retroactively take all of your communications pretty much in the history of your online presence and use it against you i mean what i have to scale this back where do we go from here her part it's a generational thing you know rights aren't so much taken as often as the relinquish

people just give them up i think that texas case with the student who's pushing back on the idea that they were a chip around to the school can track them like a minute are made you've got to look at that but when you get kids and you start getting kids used to the idea that from the time they go to school they put something on it's got a chip in it and some. principle can track them throughout the building this student will come to accept that people will become program like a loony and dogs and all the sun because people expect that they will expect privacy and if you don't expect privacy the government will never respect it for you there's no chance that will ever happen yeah yeah i mean they are if i do check thing is just absurd it's scary and it's beyond our welly and i mean it's truly fit for dystopian novel so yeah i mean we just so we have to demand it we have got to step it up and i'm absolutely if you don't demand rights to the government's never going to protect them for you've got to assert your rights their individual rights which means you can give them up if you want but it also means you have civic responsibilities we talked about to assert them and we'll see about this generation they going to get used to this and yeah they already are and i just hope that we can really wake up before it's too late already seems like it might be but thank

you so much for coming on thank you old really appreciate it. well if you like what you see so far go to our youtube channel you should dot com breaking the set and subscribe check out our facebook page facebook dot com site breaking the site i know haters going to hate going to troll you actually intelligent feel free to write me and let me know what you think if you're wondering about what i'm doing when i'm not on air follow me on twitter abby martin i take a break from my preaching but stay tuned to hear about the significance of the latest amendment to the n.b.a. two thousand and thirteen the next. six to.

experience before series with the. survival of your full service. so. before sponsorship. the nations the foreign policy. they are here to make. us. a chimp and the flying.

in the eleven long years since the nine eleven terrorist attacks americans have effectively been forced to live in a perpetual state of fear fear of terrorism the big bags scary beast that applies to way too much these days and with that has come a laundry list of controversial legislation that has systematically eroded the

rights of american citizens most recently the two thousand and twelve national defense authorization act or the n.b.a. a bill that president obama signed on new year's eve of last year which included a quad that granted the president the power to indefinitely detain american citizens on u.s. soil and although the senate recently passed the two thousand and thirteen n.b.a. along with the new provision allegedly protecting american citizens from indefinite detention many legal experts are saying not so fast and they're speculating that the new bill might actually be worse than its predecessor so here to talk about the n.b.a. and the significance of this latest amendment i'm joined by pandering bolen director of revolution truth and one of the seven plaintiffs plaintiffs are in the n.b.a. indefinite detention the lawsuit against president obama thank you so much for coming on. so can you first explain breakdown this feinstein amendment because i really think

a lot of people are really confused by it including myself well i'm understanding at least so because the reporting on it has been very confusing a lot of us where some of the charring prematurely because they looked on the surface like it was a positive thing but we really can break it down there are a number of significant objections to the bias and those include the ones that you are ready for such as the fact that it's highly discriminatory the alleged protections only apply to citizens and legal residents which is actually not constitutional and second it extends it officially extends the already of the authorization for use of military force to the united states citizens and on u.s. soil. which to debate whether the government ever have that right before and thirdly it only calls for a trial it doesn't stipulate whether that's a military or civil trial that's a significant problem and also in that it doesn't stipulate any regulations for procedures on that so if this is just

a military trial this is the same thing that we are based on that's what he followed and d.n.a. which is that people are denied any access to counsel there is no forcing them into military to make sure they have access to family or friends you can see on the on their behalf the iraq prison years in that instance and that's obviously not ideal in any way shape or form so i will thank you for breaking that down so as of this point in time i mean well of course since it hasn't been passed yet in obama's senate he might veto it for who knows why but i mean as of right now with this amendment in place if it doesn't get passed can we or can we actually say goodbye to indefinite detention for american citizens and then what about american citizens abroad and foreign nationals here in the u.s. could you just specify that one more time. i don't think we can say goodbye to indefinite detention and i don't think the u.s. government wants us to be able to say goodbye to internet detention as you know they're writing us tooth and nail and court over that so no we can't say goodbye to

it and it's our foreign nationals and us citizens overseas it's interesting the u.s. government claimed in court we shouldn't have any standing because we can't cite a single instance a b. and b. used to indefinitely detain anyone overseas they also converse they say that they don't know which they used to apply indefinite detention i mean they can really all over the place here so when the u.s. government doesn't even know which law applies i don't know why i should know that so yeah. it is extraordinary isn't it the how the lengths that the obama administration has gone to really keep this in place and also the mental gymnastics of people who are defending the obama administration say well he didn't he never wanted it he you know he was he didn't want to pass it it's like well his shirt is held trying really really hard to uphold this clause of indefinite detention he's threatening to veto this current version of the bill why do you think the white house has been fighting so hard do you think there's a possibility that american citizens are already being held in detention indefinitely here. you know i think that's a that's

a tough question i don't know if american citizens are but this is what i will tell you i think is happening i think that the u.s. government has long claimed incredibly over prosequi illegally overbroad powers under the operation for use of military force acts and i think that both bush and obama administrations have been using that so over the personae years and what the end was was a sneaky attempt at a legislative retroactive thanks to those two narrow powers that really well explains the incredible disingenuous ness of deceitful ness on the part of the d.o.j. throughout our court case it's just unfortunate that major media has not picked up on that because it's a perfect their their stance in court is profoundly contradictory and bizarre you sell so i think that the government the president is trying to keep powers they maintain they've always have they never had to come upon which they've come to rely so salute as a horse and others and that hasn't been getting much attention is gone tata moment

i mean really i mean how does that fit into the bill. well you know to his credit obama is trying to be you so the twenty thirteen n.d.a. largely because congress i mean just so bizarre only has that has put a stipulation that absolutely would prevent any more transfers out of guantanamo and there are fifty six yemeni citizens who are awaiting to these who have been long cleared for release and i just have to say i connected a panel yesterday i wanted and in particular i'll let you committed suicide there in september and i found he is the face of indefinite detention it was a classic case of wrong place wrong time caught up in two thousand and one under the a you know math and tortured i mean it's just went through absolute hell and finally gave up and actually wrote in a letter to his lawyer that the only just as he had left was through his own death so he used aides of indefinite detention and you know we all should be fighting this and we are going to be expose. the government is claiming they've always had

these powers now they have it and you know contravene international law so i really would like to see our government stop claiming to be pro democracy and pro rights oh well it's when they certainly have a critical tangerine but also it also bothers me that people are so focused on american citizens been indefinitely detained really it's just human beings i mean we need to start extending our empathy past nation states and really caring about the indefinite detention of any human being under this government of course but one really important aspect of this bill which is also very under reported is this latest amendment that essentially notify the smith act of one nine hundred forty eight that forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing u.s. public opinion in other words making the use of propaganda legalize can you talk a little about this. so i'm not that familiar with the act but i will say i think as you said in your earlier interview is this is this incremental steady erosion in our rights and it is orwellian i mean i think the term is bandied about right if

these days that it's done so quite legitimately and we just see on every fronts the u.s. government is claiming these sweeping unchecked dictatorial powers and even the power to do you define news and basically make it propaganda i'm sorry that's not a democracy it's not a democratic or something else altogether so yeah very disturbing. you know and i really thank you for everything you do on this front because people need to know about what strange strange is to me as i thought propaganda was already in use i mean it's just like oh well i thought that that's already been happening in this country for the last decade as another corporate media is but really when you also know anything about we'll have like thirty seconds left you know anything about the senator wrote about the n.b.a. and huffington post where he talks about how this effectively authorizes war against iran with section one two two two of the bill kind of directing our armed forces to prepare for war do you know anything about that you know it does look like it. why is that and there is also some some stuff in the works about extending

the map to africa i mean we government is really going out of its way to extend the battlefield war world by. the i mean this war has no geographic or temporal boundary and that changes the rules rules of the game all together it does indeed and it seems like they're just chalk in this bill full of more and more war measures thank you so much for coming on for your work for your courage tender and bolan really appreciate time thank you. all right guys will spend the weekend with all the crazy news happening in the world alleged chemical weapons in syria the u.s. plummeting off a fiscal cliff violent protests in mexico self and relations and tibet i mean it seems like the world's falling apart everywhere you look but instead of getting the latest news on all of these important issues from the corporate media all i've been

seeing this week is this. royal baby royal baby from little baby well baby it's the news royal thing and seven waiting for ever since prince william and his wife kate said i do the royal couple is expecting a baby princess kate middleton is pregnant after months of tabloid speculation and rumor the royal family has confirmed today that the duke and duchess of cambridge are expecting some breaking news buckingham palace has just announced that the duke and duchess of cambridge william and kate are expecting a baby the i hate this baby already a fetus developing what is that breaking news come on there's a lot of things that i could say about this most of which stems from i up utter disdain of a celebration of carrying on a royal blood line that does nothing more than symbolize feudalism in the twenty first century but seriously while this story was pulling in about a thousand tweets per minute many other things that have actually been happening

the fact people on this planet for example earlier this week congress passed a new n.b.a. bill for twenty thirteen which included an amendment that supposedly does away with the whole indefinite detention business. sadly that's not the case in fact all senator feinstein's amendment on one hand provides protection for americans on the other hand it takes away protections for other peoples legally in the us like journalists now president obama is threatening to veto the bill in its current form the weekend can't forget that's exactly what he did last time right before he signed it on new year's eve so what else was big this week oh yeah whistleblower army private bradley manning who after being arrested in may of two thousand and ten finally took to the stand to speak about his unlawful treatment at quantico he was forced into solitary confinement for extended periods of time made to wear leg irons and stripped down naked every night but it's only been independent bloggers and journalists following this trial on a daily basis few days ago i spoke to alexa o'brien who's one of the few

journalists actually covering the story about why the media has been silent on a case that has such profound implications. i talked to one major broadcast reporter outside about the ten stories you could get from this trial that are important for the public and they're like the public doesn't care so there's this kind of apathetic demoralized view about the role of journalism and how important it is and i think that they've kind of just given up. but i guess it's no surprise that if it isn't shock and horror violence it simply won't make headlines it's just the standard of news in america today and yet another under reported story this week is following the un's international telecommunications union conference in dubai where the u.n. agreed to work towards building a standard for the internet that would allow eavesdropping on a worldwide scale oh i'm not making this up it's called the why to seven seven zero standard for deep packet inspection which could allow international telecom

corporations to more easily watch every little thing you do online. look some people would say it's unreasonable to blame the lack of coverage on these crucial issues on the royal feet is perhaps they say it's only a minor distraction but here's what i say in response when there's so many things left the question when there are so many stories that needing our attention isn't any distraction one distraction to many. that. do we speak your language any time of the war and out of the. news programs and documentaries in spanish what matters to you breaking news that will turn it into

angles stories. for you here. in troy altie spanish to find out more visit i don't call tito it's comb. player play. play

. you know how sometimes you see a story and it seems so for lengthly you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture.